ADVERTISEMENT

It's the End of the World As We Know It . . .

Sope Creek

Hall of Famer
Feb 5, 2003
47,641
11,467
113
. . . apparently there's a limit to the amount of economic growth we can generate, according to a study done by a KPMG Analysis Lead (a "senior director") regarding the predictions made in a 1972 MIT study called "The Limits to Growth". (Here's the Wiki page regarding that MIT study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth). I'd go so far as to venture that what the country is going through is a natural and necessary shaking of its institutional foundations to try to get us to recognize and deal with the risks created by the "grab all that you can" economic model that the world - particularly the US and western Europe - have followed for the last 3-4 centuries. The study apparently says that society peaked at about 1940. Yikes.

Here's a link to a Vice.com article that talks about, and links to, the KPMG study: https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3x...it-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon.

Discuss.
 
. . . apparently there's a limit to the amount of economic growth we can generate, according to a study done by a KPMG Analysis Lead (a "senior director") regarding the predictions made in a 1972 MIT study called "The Limits to Growth". (Here's the Wiki page regarding that MIT study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth). I'd go so far as to venture that what the country is going through is a natural and necessary shaking of its institutional foundations to try to get us to recognize and deal with the risks created by the "grab all that you can" economic model that the world - particularly the US and western Europe - have followed for the last 3-4 centuries. The study apparently says that society peaked at about 1940. Yikes.

Here's a link to a Vice.com article that talks about, and links to, the KPMG study: https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3x...it-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon.

Discuss.
As near as I can tell, the authors of this study fall for the notion that the future will be nothing but an extrapolation of the present. That has never been reliable.

We have just begun with bio-engineering and bio-chemistry. We have no idea what future resources that can produce. We will have massive desalination with the plants and pumps run by mini-nukes. We will never run out of water. We have enough fissionable material for at least 50,000 years. Breeder reactors even produce fuel.

Not sure what you mean by “grab all you can” economy. But I am more scared about grab all you can government.

Post WWII Germany was in much worse shape than the post-pandemic present. Germany turned itself into the dominant European economy with free markets. If government will get the hell out of the way, and allow free market to flourish, we will be fine.

 
As near as I can tell, the authors of this study fall for the notion that the future will be nothing but an extrapolation of the present. That has never been reliable.

We have just begun with bio-engineering and bio-chemistry. We have no idea what future resources that can produce. We will have massive desalination with the plants and pumps run by mini-nukes. We will never run out of water. We have enough fissionable material for at least 50,000 years. Breeder reactors even produce fuel.

Not sure what you mean by “grab all you can” economy. But I am more scared about grab all you can government.

Post WWII Germany was in much worse shape than the post-pandemic present. Germany turned itself into the dominant European economy with free markets. If government will get the hell out of the way, and allow free market to flourish, we will be fine.


Post war Germany was helped along a wee bit because the world remembered the last time the world stopped caring about Germany. Plus it helped being so strategically important for the war against commies.
Doesn’t hurt that Germany has awesome geography (see Japan) for adding value to raw materials from elsewhere and shipping them customers . So much so it can’t consume all it makes and loans money to Southern Europe so they’ll buy their stuff.
Eh - so it’s not a miracle as much as it’s good land doing what good land does.

PS German govt is much more involved in private industry than the US minus maybe our corp welfare payments. Lol. No fan of big govt but right-sized govt and good governance are important. But I’d love to be shown to this magical place where we can eliminate people or business or govt from the mix. Lol

But do agree on the new tech bit. I would say the days of burn and churn consumption need to be over.
 
Last edited:
Post war Germany was helped along a wee bit because the world remembered the last time the world stopped caring about Germany. Plus it helped being so strategically important for the war against commies.
Doesn’t hurt that Germany has awesome geography (see Japan) for adding value to raw materials from elsewhere and shipping them customers . So much so it can’t consume all it makes and loans money to Southern Europe so they’ll buy their stuff.
Eh - so it’s not a miracle as much as it’s good land doing what good land does.

PS German govt is much more involved in private industry than the US minus maybe our corp welfare payments. Lol. No fan of big govt but right-sized govt and good governance are important. But I’d love to be shown to this magical place where we can eliminate people or business or govt from the mix. Lol

But do agree on the new tech bit. I would say the days of burn and churn consumption need to be over.
All that “good land” doesn’t mean much without an economic system that develops the opportunities the good land presents.
 
All that “good land” doesn’t mean much without an economic system that develops the opportunities the good land presents.

care to point to the place on earth with good natural ocean ports and/ or navigable/ interconnected river networks that doesn’t generate large sums of capital? You have it backwards: the land decides the economic system and, more often than not, the system of government.
 
. . . apparently there's a limit to the amount of economic growth we can generate, according to a study done by a KPMG Analysis Lead (a "senior director") regarding the predictions made in a 1972 MIT study called "The Limits to Growth". (Here's the Wiki page regarding that MIT study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth). I'd go so far as to venture that what the country is going through is a natural and necessary shaking of its institutional foundations to try to get us to recognize and deal with the risks created by the "grab all that you can" economic model that the world - particularly the US and western Europe - have followed for the last 3-4 centuries. The study apparently says that society peaked at about 1940. Yikes.

Here's a link to a Vice.com article that talks about, and links to, the KPMG study: https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3x...it-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon.

Discuss.
This is an interesting topic. The most interesting part for me is the tension between the unassailable truth that a system built on the use of limited resources is inherently fragile and cannot last forever, and the answer by critics (whom COH seems to represent well on this forum) that humans will adapt to new resources with new technologies to fill the gaps as they arise. I think the Wiki article you linked included an interesting example of this critique, namely that we will never run out of copper, because as it becomes more and more scarce, it will also become more and more expensive, and there will be more incentives to develop better recycling and find alternative technologies that will replace copper long before we run out.

In theory, I can see both sides of this tension. It makes sense to be concerned that our society is propped up on a large collection of burning fuses, and any one of them burning out before it can be replaced with something new could be ruinous. On the other hand, I can see the argument that it's ridiculous to voluntarily turn down economic growth and prosperity for no reason other than our own ignorance of what developments we might make in the future that make our current worries obsolete.

However, this tension is not symmetrical. There is one problem that is unique to the critics and the COH's of the world, and that is this: if the assumption that we will eventually replace critical technologies and resources before absolutely necessary proves false even once, it could be game over. The continued technological development of society requires our present society to continue functioning pretty much as expected. Put simply, we can't just run out of oil, and then find something else to use instead of oil. We need to develop oil's replacement while oil is still plentiful*.

On another, more pessimistic note, if COH and others like him are wrong, if the needed new technologies and resources aren't guaranteed, or worse, aren't even possible, then this limit to growth might be the answer to the Fermi Paradox.

* In this case, we already did find oil's replacement, at least in energy production. We should be entirely nuke-based by now, and instead be working on finding fission's replacement long before that's needed.
 
Venezuela.

Lol. this way of thinking might be why you tried tying the govt-orchestrated German economic miracle — which here would be considered socialist af — to your American ideals. But I get that — our land was better than even Germany’s. Took less collective effort to get the cash flowing here. Plus we had few dangerous neighbors early on and none today. Germany will always have militarily capable neighbors. Big reasons why Germans trust, and are typically happy to fund their govt while we hate ours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmac76
Lol. this way of thinking might be why you tried tying the govt-orchestrated German economic miracle — which here would be considered socialist af — to your American ideals. But I get that — our land was better than even Germany’s. Took less collective effort to get the cash flowing here. Plus we had few dangerous neighbors early on and none today. Germany will always have militarily capable neighbors. Big reasons why Germans trust, and are typically happy to fund their govt while we hate ours.
Did you read my link? The history of the post WWII German economy is very enlightening. It not only succeeded with feee markets while France snd the U K we’re still fooling around with various government programs, it absorbed the economic basket case of East Germany with barely a hiccup.
 
This is an interesting topic. The most interesting part for me is the tension between the unassailable truth that a system built on the use of limited resources is inherently fragile and cannot last forever, and the answer by critics (whom COH seems to represent well on this forum) that humans will adapt to new resources with new technologies to fill the gaps as they arise. I think the Wiki article you linked included an interesting example of this critique, namely that we will never run out of copper, because as it becomes more and more scarce, it will also become more and more expensive, and there will be more incentives to develop better recycling and find alternative technologies that will replace copper long before we run out.

In theory, I can see both sides of this tension. It makes sense to be concerned that our society is propped up on a large collection of burning fuses, and any one of them burning out before it can be replaced with something new could be ruinous. On the other hand, I can see the argument that it's ridiculous to voluntarily turn down economic growth and prosperity for no reason other than our own ignorance of what developments we might make in the future that make our current worries obsolete.

However, this tension is not symmetrical. There is one problem that is unique to the critics and the COH's of the world, and that is this: if the assumption that we will eventually replace critical technologies and resources before absolutely necessary proves false even once, it could be game over. The continued technological development of society requires our present society to continue functioning pretty much as expected. Put simply, we can't just run out of oil, and then find something else to use instead of oil. We need to develop oil's replacement while oil is still plentiful*.

On another, more pessimistic note, if COH and others like him are wrong, if the needed new technologies and resources aren't guaranteed, or worse, aren't even possible, then this limit to growth might be the answer to the Fermi Paradox.

* In this case, we already did find oil's replacement, at least in energy production. We should be entirely nuke-based by now, and instead be working on finding fission's replacement long before that's needed.
We don’t run out of oil one day and throw up our hands the next. Our continued viability and growth is evolutionary provided we don’t muck it up with various programs intended to fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and vesuvius13
provided we don’t muck it up with various programs intended to fix it.
I think this phrase best encapsulates our disagreement on this issue, because it seems to be a core concern for you, while it is nonsensical to me. You are worried about our solutions "mucking" things up, while I am worried about not having solutions.
 
Fair enough.

I just want to get you to start worrying about what comes after nuclear. If I can get you there, I will feel I have done my duty.

Co sees that day as coming after he is gone, thus not relevant to the issue.

those seeing things otherwise, are where the real divide is.

as for nuclear, nuclear as the answer is based on the assumption that the worst will never happen, despite the reality that it eventually always does and always will.

nuclear is the energy equivalent of gain of function from a risk pov, regardless of the reality that at least nuclear has proven positive value till the sht happens, whereas gain of function doesn't..

that said, perhaps you are like Co, in that possibly you don't count the inevitable "sht" going down as relevant to the debate, if it goes down after you have.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean by “grab all you can” economy. But I am more scared about grab all you can government.
i believe what you meant was, "grab all the government you can"

fify,

what fun.

are we still pretending Wall St doesn't regulate govt, rather than vice versa as was both intended and needed.
 
If government will get the hell out of the way, and allow free market to flourish, we will be fine.


always a good laugh when those who obviously know zero about economics talk about "free markets", as they inevitably not only have zero grasp of economics, but have absolutely zero grasp of what "free markets" actually are, and what our economy would look like if we actually had them.

without going into detail, if we actually had "free markets", we would have,

one national bank.

one national telecom/internet company

one media company

one national electric, gas, water, company.

one airline

one parcel delivery company

one social media company

one healthcare provider

one pharmaceutical provider.

and so on.

and none would be regulated in any way other than by the owner, and all services would be priced only by how much they can bring.

having more than one of anything just doesn't fully utilize natural synergies and efficiencies capitalism so loves.


and btw, the one bank would own the one telecom/internet company, the one media company, the one healthcare company, the one pharmaceutical company, the one electric/gas/water, company, the one airline, the one parcel delivery company, the one social media company, and so on.

and said one bank would have one shareholder.

and of course, none of this inevitable natural evolution of a "free market" would have been "personal", even in the slightest.

it's just business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmac76
always a good laugh when those who obviously know zero about economics talk about "free markets", as they inevitably not only have zero grasp of economics, but have absolutely zero grasp of what "free markets" actually are, and what our economy would look like if we actually had them.

without going into detail, if we actually had "free markets", we would have,

one national bank.

one national telecom/internet company

one media company

one national electric, gas, water, company.

one airline

one parcel delivery company

one social media company

one healthcare provider

one pharmaceutical provider.

and so on.

and none would be regulated in any way other than by the owner, and all services would be priced only by how much they can bring.

having more than one of anything just doesn't fully utilize natural synergies and efficiencies capitalism so loves.


and btw, the one bank would own the one telecom/internet company, the one media company, the one healthcare company, the one pharmaceutical company, the one electric/gas/water, company, the one airline, the one parcel delivery company, the one social media company, and so on.

and said one bank would have one shareholder.

and of course, none of this inevitable natural evolution of a "free market" would have been "personal", even in the slightest.

it's just business.
Lol. Talk about misunderstanding!
 
The problem with nuclear isn’t physics, its politics.

you mean the politics of having a huge land mass contaminated for a zillion yrs, or not ever coming up with a safe way to deal with the waste?

kinda like saying the issue with nuclear war isn't the destruction, it's just politics.
 
you mean the politics of having a huge land mass contaminated for a zillion yrs, or not ever coming up with a safe way to deal with the waste?

kinda like saying the issue with nuclear war isn't the destruction, it's just politics.
If you are talking about Chernobyl, yeah politics caused that. Obama trading perpetual safe storage at Yucca Mountain for a few electoral votes in a single election is also politics.

Next question.
 
Lol. Talk about misunderstanding!

so fill me in as to where i misunderstood.

good luck with that.

totally free markets would have the exact consequence i pointed out above.

to the extent we have them now, is why we exported our manufacturing base, our local tax bases, our good jobs, our IP, our national sovereignty, and why China now literally owns us.

it also brought us the 2008 financial melt down with another around the corner, trillions in debt to profit only the investor class, 18 plus % credit card interest on money the banks got for 0%, killing small business and working class borrowing power, $150 plus a month cable bills where we aren't allowed to own our own DVR any more and have to sign 2 yr contracts for what's a utility, hedge funds buying up our nation's real estate with Fed money, our homeless gigantic clusterfk and the crime that goes with it, and the ability to buy our govt. (thanks SCOTUS, you treasonous PsOS).

other than that, i guess free markets are great.
 
Last edited:
so fill me in as to where i misunderstood.

good luck with that.

totally free markets would have the exact consequence i pointed out above.

to the extent we have them now, is why we exported our manufacturing base, our local tax bases, our good jobs, our IP, our national sovereignty, and why China now literally owns us.

it also brought us the 2008 financial melt down with another around the corner, trillions in debt to profit only the investor class, 18 plus % credit card interest on money the banks got for 0%, killing small business and working class borrowing power, $150 plus a month cable bills where we aren't allowed to own our own DVR any more and have to sign 2 yr contracts for what's a utility, hedge funds buying up our nation's real estate with Fed money, our homeless gigantic clusterfk and the crime that goes with it, and the ability to buy our govt. (thanks SCOTUS, you treasonous PsOS).

other than that, i guess free markets are great.
No, you need to thank the Democrat Mayor’s for the cluster!
 
so fill me in as to where i misunderstood.

good luck with that.

totally free markets would have the exact consequence i pointed out above.

to the extent we have them now, is why we exported our manufacturing base, our local tax bases, our good jobs, our IP, our national sovereignty, and why China now literally owns us.

it also brought us the 2008 financial melt down with another around the corner, trillions in debt to profit only the investor class, 18 plus % credit card interest on money the banks got for 0%, killing small business and working class borrowing power, $150 plus a month cable bills where we aren't allowed to own our own DVR any more and have to sign 2 yr contracts for what's a utility, hedge funds buying up our nation's real estate with Fed money, our homeless gigantic clusterfk and the crime that goes with it, and the ability to buy our govt. (thanks SCOTUS, you treasonous PsOS).

other than that, i guess free markets are great.
You misunderstand by assuming the business community is a free market advocate. It isn’t. It continually strives to stifle competition. Regulation of business should be only that necessary to protect the free market.

Edit: The rent-seeking part of the business community also uses the government to distort markets and give it advantages to not only stfle competitors but to make sure they cant even start. We are seeing now more than ever before how big business loves big government.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2
Co sees that day as coming after he is gone, thus not relevant to the issue.

those seeing things otherwise, are where the real divide is.
Yep.

CoH has previously told us he doesn't care what happens after he dies. It's not about issues or ideas, it's all about him.
 
Yep.

CoH has previously told us he doesn't care what happens after he dies. It's not about issues or ideas, it's all about him.
62574080.jpg
 
As near as I can tell, the authors of this study fall for the notion that the future will be nothing but an extrapolation of the present. That has never been reliable.

We have just begun with bio-engineering and bio-chemistry. We have no idea what future resources that can produce. We will have massive desalination with the plants and pumps run by mini-nukes. We will never run out of water. We have enough fissionable material for at least 50,000 years. Breeder reactors even produce fuel.

Not sure what you mean by “grab all you can” economy. But I am more scared about grab all you can government.

Post WWII Germany was in much worse shape than the post-pandemic present. Germany turned itself into the dominant European economy with free markets. If government will get the hell out of the way, and allow free market to flourish, we will be fine.

COH, cannot argue with your post as your guess is probably better than mine.

However, your closing remark leaves me wondering.

"If government will get the hell out of the way, and allow free market to flourish, we will be fine".

i wonder because i see our form of government as reflecting the desires of individuals and businesses. These are the same individuals and entities which are the invisible hands behind the free market.

So our destiny is in the hands of We the People no matter how you slice it.
 
You misunderstand by assuming the business community is a free market advocate. It isn’t. It continually strives to stifle competition. Regulation of business should be only that necessary to protect the free market.

Edit: The rent-seeking part of the business community also uses the government to distort markets and give it advantages to not only stfle competitors but to make sure they cant even start. We are seeing now more than ever before how big business loves big government.

obviously like most everyone else, you totally confuse "free markets" with "competitive markets".

in reality, they are basically not only polar opposites of each other, but also mutually exclusive of each other.

you can't have both "competitive markets" and "free markets", as free markets by definition are free to quash or buy all viable competitors, and not only do so, but are absolutely mandated by the capitalism algorithm to do so.

it's just business, and the capitalism algorithm won't allow for any other behavior..

if you want "competitive markets", you can't also have "free markets". the capitalism algorithm won't allow it.

if you're talking low barrier to market entry local business, that's essentially irrelevant to the conversation.

thus why when people talk about "free markets", they have absolutely zero idea what they are talking about, and the business landscape they are really wanting, is the exact opposite of what they are inadvertently lobbying for.
 
The problem with nuclear isn’t physics, its politics.
Nuclear fusion, the long-term solution, has lots of physics and perhaps more precisely massive engineering problems.

That's why it was touted as "40 years away" in 1973,
then touted as "40 years away" in 1990,
then touted as "40 years away" in 2010,
and still touted as "40 years away" in 2021

Obviously on a theoretical basis it makes sense, as the power source for every star, but generating and controlling the necessary operational temperatures on scale remains a huge physics and more precisely an engineering challenge.

Fission is available right now as our bridge to full implementation of renewables, complemented by 100% carbon capture of all fossil fuels still in use. That needs to happen, maybe by 2050, maybe sooner, maybe later. But 2050 seems generally well-supported as a date where we better have reached the point of dumping net 0 metric tons of CO2 per year instead of dumping 40 billion metric tons of CO2 per year, as we do now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU and bigmac76
obviously like most everyone else, you totally confuse "free markets" with "competitive markets".

in reality, they are basically not only polar opposites of each other, but also mutually exclusive of each other.

you can't have both "competitive markets" and "free markets", as free markets by definition are free to quash or buy all viable competitors, and not only do so, but are absolutely mandated by the capitalism algorithm to do so.

it's just business, and the capitalism algorithm won't allow for any other behavior..

if you want "competitive markets", you can't also have "free markets". the capitalism algorithm won't allow it.

if you're talking low barrier to market entry local business, that's essentially irrelevant to the conversation.

thus why when people talk about "free markets", they have absolutely zero idea what they are talking about, and the business landscape they are really wanting, is the exact opposite of what they are inadvertently lobbying for.
You need to get out of Cliff Notes economics 101.

Social prosperity and economic growth is driven by creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation. Those are only possible in a free market. Electricity lept into the economic and social structure in the late 19th century because of free markets and the creativity and innovation of people. It wasn’t a government program.
 
Nuclear fusion, the long-term solution, has lots of physics and perhaps more precisely massive engineering problems.

That's why it was touted as "40 years away" in 1973,
then touted as "40 years away" in 1990,
then touted as "40 years away" in 2010,
and still touted as "40 years away" in 2021

Obviously on a theoretical basis it makes sense, as the power source for every star, but generating and controlling the necessary operational temperatures on scale remains a huge physics and more precisely an engineering challenge.

Fission is available right now as our bridge to full implementation of renewables, complemented by 100% carbon capture of all fossil fuels still in use. That needs to happen, maybe by 2050, maybe sooner, maybe later. But 2050 seems generally well-supported as a date where we better have reached the point of dumping net 0 metric tons of CO2 per year instead of dumping 40 billion metric tons of CO2 per year, as we do now.
We have enough fissile material to produce electricity for 10‘s of thousands of years. We’ve only had large scale electric consumption for 125 years and have been working on fusion for a few decades. I don’t see a problem here.
 
COH, cannot argue with your post as your guess is probably better than mine.

However, your closing remark leaves me wondering.

"If government will get the hell out of the way, and allow free market to flourish, we will be fine".

i wonder because i see our form of government as reflecting the desires of individuals and businesses. These are the same individuals and entities which are the invisible hands behind the free market.

So our destiny is in the hands of We the People no matter how you slice it.
Government becomes more disconnected from the people by the day. The people want paved roads and safe bridges. The government won’t allow that without dealing with everything from abortion to elections to immigration at the same time. . We no longer have public debate and public input obout anything. Government is all about acquiring or keeping power, big donors, and special interests. When I hear politicians bitch about January 6 being an assault on democracy I want to vomit. Congress itself is an assault on democracy. passing multi-trillion dollar spending bills that nobody debates let alone reads? C’mon man!
 
ADVERTISEMENT